The Armour Archive

I was going to make myself another gambeson and I was thinking about the line that gambesons had 30 layers of linen. I was thinking about how much like a flack jacket that must have been like and I was wondering if anyone here knows of any study involving specific materials used to build one of them.

For example, if I was to use layers of cotton muslin on the inside because $2 a yard is cheaper then $9 is there a significant change in the behavior of the material when you have 30 layers of it?

I have spent a few days meditating on late 12th century and early 13th century depictions of knights in mail. They are all slender. Even accounting for style and idealist depictions it would seem that if knights bulked up with padding under their mail at least the effigies might have had a bulkier look to them. I'm thinking that the stiffness of the gambeson allowed for a pretty snug fit and allowed the maille and tabards to flow like they do in the imagery.

I wanted to give it a try, but buying 60 yards of linen is a difficult purchase, so I was thinking that I'd get cheap cotton fabric that goes for $1 or $2 a yard for all the under layers and use linen on the outside for looks. Do y'all think that financial shortcut would hinder the 'authentic' performance of the padded jack?

Thoughts? Is there something else I should be considering?

I think 30 layers of linen applies to quilted jacks such as those in the 15th century that were worn on their own as armor, not over or under other armor. Those jacks had to be so thick in order to resist piercing. For a garment worn with mail, the mail protects against piercing; the padded garment is there to absorb impact.

What place and time are you looking at?

An 8 layer linen gambeson is heavy. It will break many sewering machines. 30 layers would be massive... maybe an inch thick. I would suspect a piece of armor made of 30 layers of linen would prevent one from feeling anything short of an excessive blow.

@Flittie: Good point about the chain being there to stop the cut & thrust. No need to make them like the 15thC Jacks.

@Edwin: I was intending on hand stitching the thing. 30 layers would be an inch think? You could make a body contoured shape with that. But that seems a little advanced for the evidence that is left behind...

The period I'm working on is 1200 - 1250. I'm not intending this kit for SCA.

I see depictions of heavy padded armour on foot shoulders and slim body hugging chain shirts on the knights. Everyone seems to think that the knights were wearing some sort of padding under their chain, but the effigies and Maciejowski bible makes it seem what the chain mail guys are wearing under their chain is very slim indeed.

The padded gambesons in the Maciejowski seem like they are made with sleeves that are separate, but attached. The tabards are frequently depicted with the shoulders flared, maybe the padded body was worn over the chain, but under the tabard.

The thing I'm trying to reconcile is was makes sense to my 21st Century brain vs. what I'm seeing depicted in the surviving art. I want to see heavy padding under chain, but it looks like there was virtually no padding under the chain and some padding over it sometimes.

Any thoughts out there?

Brother Justin wrote: I want to see heavy padding under chain, but it looks like there was virtually no padding under the chain and some padding over it sometimes.

Any thoughts out there?

I fight in mail (SCA). Just for info, it's welded TI mail from Master Cnut. It weighs about 13 lbs, long sleeve, almost knee length. From skin out, I wear a tshirt, a kidney belt, a tunic (trigger for practice, heavy linen for events), then the mail which is belted at the waist. When I first got the mail I wore a gambeson made from 2 layers of heavy linen. I could barely feel body shots at that point. As I wear it now (no gambeson), a full force, unimpeded shot to the body that misses the kidney belt smarts a bit, and might leave a mail-patterned bruise.

Mail works. More than you might think, even against blunt force.

I have a 13th century templar kit. My gambesson for under my mail is 7 layers of cotton with the outer layer being linen. It is for SCA and it is both comfortable and protective. I couldn't justify 8 layers of linen when only one is visible. I would go for it if I were you. I can't imagine that the performance will be that much different.

Linen wicks, cotton emphatically does not. Linen breathes better, too. Net result is a garment made from cotton will keep you colder in the winter, hotter in the summer, and soak up sweat to increase in weight mercilessly.

Brother Justin wrote:I was going to make myself another gambeson and I was thinking about the line that gambesons had 30 layers of linen.

I'm heading in the same direction. Test pieces I have mocked up indicate that somewhere between 7 and 12 layers of canvas-weight linen would be appropriate for SCA combat.

Brother Justin wrote:I have spent a few days meditating on late 12th century and early 13th century depictions of knights in mail. They are all slender. Even accounting for style and idealist depictions it would seem that if knights bulked up with padding under their mail at least the effigies might have had a bulkier look to them. I'm thinking that the stiffness of the gambeson allowed for a pretty snug fit and allowed the maille and tabards to flow like they do in the imagery.

Or, as is illustrated in the Maciewjowski Bible, they didn't wear quilted garments under the mail. The only clear evidence I've ever found was on the effigy of William Marshal. There is likely a heavy padded roll on top of his head under his coif. still, there isn't much to indicate he is wearing anything heavy under his hauberk -- certainly not something crafted from 30 layers of linen.

Hope this helps... AoC

Look at fabric-store.com and you can get natural linen for around 5 bucks, not 9. Unless you are a gorilla, you will need much less than 30 yards.

Uric

I am not so sure about layered cloth armors that early; never read anything to say they did it.

On weight; I made a 27 layer jack for a skinny guy in Lord Grey's, it has arms and only is just below the groin, it weights about 25 pounds. For weight you are way better off with raw cotton for the filling.

carlyle wrote:Or, as is illustrated in the Maciewjowski Bible, they didn't wear quilted garments under the mail. The only clear evidence I've ever found was on the effigy of William Marshal. . . AoC

The Maciejowski does show limited expanses -- coifs and cuisses extending down to cover the entire knee joint -- of just such quilted garments for use under mail, in what looks intended to represent bleached or fairly bleached linen. At any rate, it's off-white, most probably fabric, and covered with rows of little hyphens. I suppose you're thinking of the other garments, the offwhite jacks with those interesting sleeves that may be actually affixed to some garment beneath the body part of the jack and coming out through the armholes, the whole with the same surface as the quilted coifs and cuisses. From a recent look at the M images online, this armor seemed always standalone. Was it invariably with a kettlehat rather than a pothelm?

Owyn wrote:Linen wicks, cotton emphatically does not. Linen breathes better, too. Net result is a garment made from cotton will keep you colder in the winter, hotter in the summer, and soak up sweat to increase in weight mercilessly.

My gambeson is two layers of 100% cotton batting quilted between 100% cotton muslin. Each day I wear it at Pennsic I have to lay it out in the sun for 3-4 hours in order to dry it out. So I guess there must be a leprechaun well inside it or something, since it doesn't wick.

(Increase in weight after 3 hours of fighting: about 8 ounces?)

You know, now I'm mystified now as to why my socks are always wet at the end of the day, too.



There's an entire Indian subcontinent that would also probably argue that cotton performs pretty well in the heat....

Cotton is not a bad fabric to have on the cosmic scale of things. It isn't as good as linen and some folks will tell you it isn't as good as wool. It really depends a lot on your preference. The real trick is to get 100% cotton. Modern additives such as nylon or polyester will cause a huge increase in heat retention. Also, IIRC, cotton was not widely available in western Europe during the Middle Ages, hence the use of silk and linen. I'm pretty sure that nylon and polyester were never found in medieval garments...

Cameron

carlyle wrote:... as is illustrated in the Maciewjowski Bible, they didn't wear quilted garments under the mail.

Konstantin the Red wrote:The Maciejowski does show limited expanses -- coifs and cuisses extending down to cover the entire knee joint -- of just such quilted garments for use under mail...

Sheesh, with Konstantin for a critic, I guess I better parse my comments better .

He is correct, gamboised cuisses are well-represented in the MB. My comment about not wearing quilted garments under mail, though, was intended to speak to the use of gambesons/aketons. As Konstantin indicates, these were predominantly represented in lieu of mail. There are a couple of depictions where they appear to be used together, and even though I will base my own impression on this, it is the rarer case. This armor only appears on foot soldiers, while mail is depicted on both foot and cavalry.

Alfred the Chastised

Kerry Pratt wrote:Also, IIRC, cotton was not widely available in western Europe during the Middle Ages, hence the use of silk and linen. I'm pretty sure that nylon and polyester were never found in medieval garments...

Depends on the era. For 'dark age' periods, I've never heard of solid evidence of cotton in northern Europe in any quantity. But in the post-Crusades era, Egypt started exporting a large percentage of their total yield to Europe. By the 13th/14th centuries, my understanding is that cotton was not uncommon, although probably nowhere near as common as the home-grown wool and linen.

When padding is shown with mail on the same figure, frequently the mail is under the padding. I see this all the time even in effigies and later period art. Clearly the maille was a layer of protection that was separate from the padding and the padding underneath wasn't a requirement for wearing it.

Specifically, in the Unpronounceable Bible, you see some padding around the neck in some figures with their coifs pulled back, but in the imagery when one guy is hastily putting on maille, he has no padding on, and in another image when they are stripping a king, he has no padding on under the armour.

A few SCA guys in this thread so far have said that mail helps distribute blows from clubs, I know from personal experience that the more you SCA fight, the more used to the thumping you get and you even bruise less. Maybe there's something to that. Knights were trained and therefore inured to pain from trauma and in that training they wore to mail to keep from loosing limbs and stopping arrows, but kept the under padding light to retain mobility.

On the other hand, there's an account from the 3rd crusade by mounted archers in Saladin's army. As Richard's army was walking south along the Mediterranean, they were peppering the crusaders with arrows from their horses and remarked that some of the Franks had up to 40 arrows sticking out of their backs and they just. kept. walking. So there is anecdotal evidence to suggest they had thick enough layers of felt or linen that if an arrow did pierce the maille, the arrows wouldn't get through the padding underneath. But that would suggest that the mailled knights looked like metal enshrouded Michelin Men.

I think that most of the Medieval art seen is idealized representations. Just like comic book heroes have mobility that their huge pecks and arms wouldn't allow. So you could argue that people wanted to look slim but warriors then looked mostly like warriors do today. But does that mean they padded up like we would think would be intelligent to? Or were they tough like Spartans? Getting hit with a rattan club and getting chopped with a sword are two different things.

I'm still ambivalent on this. I have some gambesons that are very thick, some that are very thin and are glorified arming coats. I could go either way, but the suit of chain that I'm making will need to be different sizes depending how much padding I'm wearing under it. I guess that this stuff is so long ago there isn't much of a definitive consensus on what was actually done.

According to the text "How a Man Shall be Armed" the appellant wears nothing on his back but a doublet of fustian, lined with satin, and cut full of holes. The full text, translated and original, can be found on Brian Price's Chronique http://www.chronique.com/Library/Armour/armyd1.htm. Pretty good stuff that dates to mid 15th century and sheds at least a little light on the thoughts of the day. That's not to say that there isn't other ways to arm but it's probably just as reliable as the artwork of the day.

Cameron

An interesting video reviewing the value of linen as armour, as used by the Greeks...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ERSx1o8wwk

Glaukos

Owyn wrote:

Kerry Pratt wrote:Also, IIRC, cotton was not widely available in western Europe during the Middle Ages, hence the use of silk and linen. I'm pretty sure that nylon and polyester were never found in medieval garments...

Depends on the era. For 'dark age' periods, I've never heard of solid evidence of cotton in northern Europe in any quantity. But in the post-Crusades era, Egypt started exporting a large percentage of their total yield to Europe. By the 13th/14th centuries, my understanding is that cotton was not uncommon, although probably nowhere near as common as the home-grown wool and linen.

While cotton fibers were not uncommon during the medieval period even in northwest Europe, I am unaware of any credible evidence that cotton fibers were woven into cloth and the resulting cloth used as clothing. What modern Brits call 'cotton wool' - meaning unspun cotton - was used as batting/padding in 14th-century garments.

Even as late as the death of Elizabeth, cotton garments are so rare as to be unthinkable. Elizabeth I had one - ONE - cotton shift, and there is no evidence that, as an incredibly expensive gift, it was ever worn.

Cheers,

Bob

Brewer, I am having problems understanding your answer. If you are contending that cotton thread was not used to weave cloth garments I think you should take a look at The Italian Cotton Industry In The Middle Ages 1100-1600. by Mazzaoui. The evidence therein shows cotton fibers were used in Italy in mixed fiber cloth used for garments, IE Fustian. I am thinking you are tacitly excluding mixed cloth in your reply.

Upon re-reading the above it sounds curt and impolite. I don't mean it that way. I am just pointing out that mixed cloth is an appropriate period alternative which is still available today.

ONe should note that a '30 layer' or '20 layer' jack would not be 20 or 30 layers across the entire surface of them, going by both the images we have of them, the few extant ones, and common sense dictates that they varied across the surface.

A 20 layer jack, for instance, would be 20 layers to the waist, significantly less at the waist itself by the shaping of it, and thicker layers at the peplum - looking at the St. Ursula Reliquery images, we see the bend at the elbow cut away, down to very few layers visibly in the image. The Lubeck jacks were intended to be worn with a breastplate over them (no back), and are thinner where the breastplate lay.

Gambesons are not jacks, and seem to be quilted through with heavy canvas outside, and tow or raw cotton stuffing (again, quilted THROUGH, the stuffing, holding the stuffing in place - not tube stuffed like a modern comforter). From descriptions of Scottish Jacks, the tradition of the earlier form continued in Northern England and Scotland, with the softness of the stuffed garment being noted (by Dominic Mancini) - anyone who has handled a many-layered jack knows they are not soft.

At any rate, in historic sources in the Later Middle Ages, we find descriptions of jacks with different names, cearly representing different types, and we should not use the term loosly today, when they clearly had different catagories of cloth armour historically.

Baron Eirik wrote:

Brother Justin wrote: I want to see heavy padding under chain, but it looks like there was virtually no padding under the chain and some padding over it sometimes.
Any thoughts out there?

I fight in mail (SCA). Just for info, it's welded TI mail from Master Cnut. It weighs about 13 lbs, long sleeve, almost knee length. From skin out, I wear a tshirt, a kidney belt, a tunic (trigger for practice, heavy linen for events), then the mail which is belted at the waist. When I first got the mail I wore a gambeson made from 2 layers of heavy linen. I could barely feel body shots at that point. As I wear it now (no gambeson), a full force, unimpeded shot to the body that misses the kidney belt smarts a bit, and might leave a mail-patterned bruise.
Mail works. More than you might think, even against blunt force.

+1
I wear head to toe maille. One layer of coton underneath to keep the maille from rubbing. Padded gambisons just heat you up. I noticed no difference in the bruises when I stopped wearing padding.

lorenzo2 wrote:Brewer, I am having problems understanding your answer. If you are contending that cotton thread was not used to weave cloth garments I think you should take a look at The Italian Cotton Industry In The Middle Ages 1100-1600. by Mazzaoui. The evidence therein shows cotton fibers were used in Italy in mixed fiber cloth used for garments, IE Fustian.

Regionalism? I mean, the English drank from their boots, too...

Glaukos the Athenian wrote:An interesting video reviewing the value of linen as armour, as used by the Greeks...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ERSx1o8wwk

Glaukos

Just on a side note... this vid is awesome! :3 What a valuable contribution to the study of ancient history!

lorenzo2 wrote:Brewer, I am having problems understanding your answer. If you are contending that cotton thread was not used to weave cloth garments I think you should take a look at The Italian Cotton Industry In The Middle Ages 1100-1600. by Mazzaoui. The evidence therein shows cotton fibers were used in Italy in mixed fiber cloth used for garments, IE Fustian. I am thinking you are tacitly excluding mixed cloth in your reply.

Upon re-reading the above it sounds curt and impolite. I don't mean it that way. I am just pointing out that mixed cloth is an appropriate period alternative which is still available today.

Sure is. And fustian is often specified in period accounts, most notably the arming doublet mentioned by Kerry above. Fustian as you've defined it is of linen warp and cotton weft. Note also that fustian could very well be linen warp and woollen weft, or even an all-woollen fabric. What type of fustian is meant depends on where and exactly when the term is used.

I tend to react strongly to people throwing "cotton" around, because the next thing you know they're making things out of 100% cotton 'because XYZ person said it was okay'. I was writing put the kibosh on the possibility of cotton garments, not fustian or padded with cotton batting.

I apologize if I wasn't clear. No worries on impolitic writing; Lord knows I'm guilty of it often enough!

Cheers,

Bob

was looking on fabric-store.com. on the linen, it goes from 2.8 oz to 8 oz. If I want to make a simple 2 layer tunic to have under my lamellar, should it be 2 layers of 8...or would it be better to have a lighter under layer (would it be softer?)? How well will it wick?

Are there any guides, or do I basically stitch 2 layers of linen together then cut and sew a tunic?

thanks
Bjorn

Build a lining, build the shell, sew these together at the garment's edges. The lining and the shell may in theory be pieced together differently if necessary. Linen rides cool and wicks well. You may prefer to leave the bottom edge of the lining floating free like a jacket's liner, particularly if the lining fabric differs from the shell fabric, say in weight. This is so if the lining is more inclined to stretch or less inclined to shrink than the outer shell is, the lining will not bag and look sloppy and amateurish, but stay neat and goodlooking.

Knocking it around in a washer and drier is what softens linen. That, and use. Remember bleached linen was used for underclothes and bedsheets for many centuries.

does the weight of the linen affect how it feels uch, or is it mostly a question of weight and durablility (I am ussuming for a fighting garment I would want high weight...am I right?)

thanks
Bjorn

I use heavy weight and canvas weight linen in all my fighting clothing, as well as wool.
My cote has a fustian shell with 100% cotton batting and a linen lining.
I have one layer of batting in the chest and back and lower arms and 2 layers in the shoulder and upper arm and from the waiste down.
Basicly the areas that have armour over them (not including maile) have one layer, the areas that are only covered by maile have a second layer.
My cote is not bulky to wear at all.
I have had folks put their hands on my sweaty cote and be amazed that it was cool to the touch.
Linen does wick moisture realy well
My cote of plates is linen and it actually draws moisture through the maile shirt.

chef de chambre wrote:Gambesons are not jacks, and seem to be quilted through with heavy canvas outside, and tow or raw cotton stuffing (again, quilted THROUGH, the stuffing, holding the stuffing in place - not tube stuffed like a modern comforter). From descriptions of Scottish Jacks, the tradition of the earlier form continued in Northern England and Scotland, with the softness of the stuffed garment being noted (by Dominic Mancini) - anyone who has handled a many-layered jack knows they are not soft.

At any rate, in historic sources in the Later Middle Ages, we find descriptions of jacks with different names, cearly representing different types, and we should not use the term loosly today, when they clearly had different catagories of cloth armour historically.

Chef, to make sure I'm reading your reply correctly---"Scottish jacks" were made of a shell, a liner, and stuffing all quilted together? Any idea how thick they were?

Are there any jacks of any place and time that were made of a combination of a few layers of fabric outside, a few layers inside, and stuffing between them? I ask because sometimes jacks of plates are described as being made of plates laced between several layers of fabric.

I've seen references to "jacks stuffed with mail." Would those have been purely mail covered by a layer of cloth inside and a layer outside? Would any stuffing have been used in addition to the mail? Were the jacks quilted through the mail?

To the SCA guys who fight in maille:

Have any of you been thumped with anything thinner then a SCA stick? I am thinking that without some reinforcement the chain would not be enough to stop a sword blow, however protective maille might be against rattan.

About the Gambesons in the MB:

I noticed that the kettle hats were usually paired with a padded coat. The chain suits were either without a helmet, or with a great helm or Norman helm in the case of the 'bad guys'. There are a few exceptions in the MB too.

Assuming that the guys in chain could afford a more expensive under armour, maybe the knights wore something close to what we are wearing now, Linen with a soft fiber padding. Maybe the 'rabble' in the kettle hats had coarser material and padding, like jute or hemp padded in a heavy linen cloth. That would account for the difference in depiction... Of course that is a pure conjecture on my part. Does anyone know of any corroboration from period resources off the top of their heads?

Brother Justin wrote:I am thinking that without some reinforcement the chain would not be enough to stop a sword blow, however protective maille might be against rattan.

Independent tests of varying degrees of complexity and authenticity have been conducted over the years. All that I know of have confirmed that rivited mail alone will stop a sword stroke from cutting through.

Brother Justin wrote:Assuming that the guys in chain could afford a more expensive under armour, maybe the knights wore something close to what we are wearing now, Linen with a soft fiber padding.

In the two depictions portrayed in the MB, one with mail being donned and another with a dead king being stripped, the illustration seems to indicate that only a tunic is worn beneath the mail. Considering the amount of detail afforded where quilting is indicated, the lack of comparable stitching marks would lead one to believe that this undergarment is not padded.

Brother Justin wrote:Maybe the 'rabble' in the kettle hats had coarser material and padding, like jute or hemp padded in a heavy linen cloth. That would account for the difference in depiction... Of course that is a pure conjecture on my part. Does anyone know of any corroboration from period resources off the top of their heads?

As far as knights wearing heavily quilted cotes over their mail, de Joinville describes a scene where knights injured from the day's battles donned only their cotes as armor to repel a nighttime ambush. This is roughly contemporary with the MB.

Respectfully,

Alfred of Carlyle

Brother Justin wrote:To the SCA guys who fight in maille:

Have any of you been thumped with anything thinner then a SCA stick? I am thinking that without some reinforcement the chain would not be enough to stop a sword blow, however protective maille might be against rattan.

Been wearing mail for about 2 years now. I have a pretty heavily padded gambeson. As far as heat well I guess I have gotten a bit used to the heat over the years in a closed face helm don't know how it would feel without it.(the extra padding that is)


What I DO know is that I have a kidney belt with 1/4" aluminum plates riveted to the belt, the gambeson over that and then the chain. I have taken some pretty HARD hits that have bent the aluminum through the chain during melee's. Tourney's am not worried but it kinda made me glad I have the heavy padding and all. The plates on my back are the same thickness as my leg armour and I have never had one of those break/bend.

My two cents would be to start a bit thicker and go lighter as you adapt to fighting in it. Safe then sorry, it is your health after all. If you get used to it and feel you can go lighter fine.

Again that is my opinion on it. Your mileage/thickness will vary.

(don't like pain)

Flittie wrote:

chef de chambre wrote:Gambesons are not jacks, and seem to be quilted through with heavy canvas outside, and tow or raw cotton stuffing (again, quilted THROUGH, the stuffing, holding the stuffing in place - not tube stuffed like a modern comforter). From descriptions of Scottish Jacks, the tradition of the earlier form continued in Northern England and Scotland, with the softness of the stuffed garment being noted (by Dominic Mancini) - anyone who has handled a many-layered jack knows they are not soft.

At any rate, in historic sources in the Later Middle Ages, we find descriptions of jacks with different names, cearly representing different types, and we should not use the term loosly today, when they clearly had different catagories of cloth armour historically.

Chef, to make sure I'm reading your reply correctly---"Scottish jacks" were made of a shell, a liner, and stuffing all quilted together? Any idea how thick they were?

Yes as to method, no as to thickness.

Are there any jacks of any place and time that were made of a combination of a few layers of fabric outside, a few layers inside, and stuffing between them? I ask because sometimes jacks of plates are described as being made of plates laced between several layers of fabric.

Said Scottish jacks - the only time and places jacks under the name jacks were worn is during the 15th & 16th centuries. Earlier medieval textile armours were called gambesons, and to the best of kowledge, were stuffed on the same order as the Scoittish jacks, which seem to be the survivors of the tradition.

I've seen references to "jacks stuffed with mail." Would those have been purely mail covered by a layer of cloth inside and a layer outside? Would any stuffing have been used in addition to the mail? Were the jacks quilted through the mail?

They, to the best of my knowledge, would be a jack built around a mail shirt (a front-opening one, likely, closed by points or straps). They are also termed 'gestraunt' in some late Medival English documents, and could be very well made for important people (John Howard and his sons, in example, where they were covered with an expensive cloth covering, like a brigandine). The diffence between a jack stuffed with mail, and John Howards gestraunt, I suspect, primarily being the quality of the mail shirt used in them, and the quality of the cover - a mail stuffed jack probably having a linen cover like any other jack.

chef de chambre wrote:They, to the best of my knowledge, would be a jack built around a mail shirt (a front-opening one, likely, closed by points or straps). They are also termed 'gestraunt' in some late Medival English documents, and could be very well made for important people (John Howard and his sons, in example, where they were covered with an expensive cloth covering, like a brigandine). The diffence between a jack stuffed with mail, and John Howards gestraunt, I suspect, primarily being the quality of the mail shirt used in them, and the quality of the cover - a mail stuffed jack probably having a linen cover like any other jack.

Considering the construction of fabric covered mail, it seems to me the "gestraunt" is linguistically derived from the earlier term for the same armor, jasserant>khazaghand?